tv Historic Preservation Commission 6116 SFGTV June 8, 2016 3:00am-4:01am PDT
sounds your mobile devices. when speaking before the commission if you care to state your name for the record and i will take will call at this time. >>[call of the roll] >> clerk: thank you commissioners. first on your agenda is general public comments. at this time members of the public address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up for up to 3 min. i've no speak of cards. >> president wolfram: does any member of the public wish to make general public, and if so please come forward? >> testifier: i like to see
the commission's advice on historic preservation issue. i'm doing some research on >> clerk: can you these speak into the microphone? >> testifier: i'm doing historic preservation research on this building in north beach. try put it on the overhead?'s >> president wolfram: yes >> clerk >> testifier: the time i have left, [inaudible] the factory which was built in 1946-1947 by san francisco architect actually a native of commerce
oh higher. got his degree in washington state and started practicing in 1929 was martin j rest. the present st. cecilia church are building [inaudible]. i think it's the building has very high potential for being on the registry of landmarks in san francisco and the present owner, marlene-daughter of fred, who founded the company built the building is still alive. it's going to a bone of contention for almost its entire life into it went up in operation of manufacturing a see-two zone but it was declared all the legal sausage factory from the time it started running in 1940. it goes down finally in 1981. so there's been some public effort in the 80s, 81, 83 to great a special use zone within the area which is this building is
actually it's directly behind the st. francis trying. so come the layout. it's right in that property from vallejo and greenstreet at 535. they bought the property from archbishop mitty as the sole corporation for the archdiocese of san francisco. the archdiocese down in palo alto and actually menlo park is doing some research for me from the die size. i look i guess and seek the commission said by someone, [inaudible] and let her know what i'm doing , but also your advice i think in bringing to the attention of the supervisors and also this commission should be for further going through research. that's all accurate >> president wolfram: thanks. we don't give advice at this hyatt hearing but you can contact the planning presentations up on the website.
any other member of the public wish to make public on? seeing none, and hewitt will close general public, good >> clerk: item 1 directors announcements. >> i have nothing commissioners >> clerk: items to the mission matters >> staff: normal formal learning commission report that i to items to share with you. one is, as you are aware, the government oversight, government audit site and met after last hearing to discuss the legacy business registry program. at that hearing, the you commissioner timothy was present and she may have some comments regarding the outcome of that meeting. what we heard is that the committee has asked for an update on the program at its hearing tomorrow as well.
we been in contact with regina, from the office of small business. she has no stated to me that she has seven complete applications that she will forward to us on monday. which is june 6. if she were to transmit those applications we would have to hear them at your july 6 hearing or, which because it's close to the july 4 all day, maybe cancels.. it would give her a little more time to transmit those applications if we postpone that a little bit, and schedules that hearing for the july 20 hearing. but that is at your discretion. maybe something you want to take up today. the second item is just a quick report about the departments pending budget. as you recall, the commission-this
commission added one additional fte to support the legacy business registry and all of the departments ask for the preservation programming including the additional fte have remained in the mayor's budget. so, we will keep you posted as that moves through the board of supervisors and discussions there. but it looks like everything is in place for the next fiscal year. that concludes my comments. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. any comments or questions? moving on speaker commissioners that a place is on item 3. when the commission matters is in support and announcements >> president wolfram: no report or announcements >> clerk: item 4, consideration of adoption 4 min. for may 18 aoc meeting >> president wolfram: is any member of the public to comment on the draft meeting minutes of may 18 the architectural review committee and the regular hpc
hearing? seeing none, and hearing none, we will close public comment. why have a motion to approve the minutes? >> moved and seconded. speaker than to adopt the minutes, with a may 18 architectural review committee hearing and the regular hearing, so moved commissioners that matt motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on item 5 commission comments and questions. >> president wolfram: commissioner matsuda >> commissioner matsuda: i comments will be brief. i just want report to the commission that i did attend last week's hearing and all the supervisors who were present were very appreciative of the commission and are just as anxious to see this program move forward as we
are. >> president fong: thank you. commissioner pearlman >> commissioner pearlman: last night i got to go through the-building and if you have not seen it they did a beautiful job in the restoration and just really spectacular so it's on judah near ninth avenue so take a look. i am happy to announce that the first big event at hibernia bank with the rally for hillary clinton last week. i was there and was very amazing to be in that room with hundreds and hundreds of people , nfl like it was the 1940s and harry truman was cannot come up on the stage because of all the flags and banners and everything. anyway was very excited. thank you. >> president wolfram: great, thank you. do we have the topic of the meeting on july 6 two agreement out?
>> clerk: this would be the appropriate time >> president wolfram: the only item on the agenda is the possibility that we may receive this legacy business packet. though that's not been confirmed. building there any other agenda items confirm that hearing. is that true? >> clerk: the only other item i see is the heritage conservation [inaudible]. >> president wolfram: that's in an informational review and comment >> clerk: it's just the beginning of the historic preservation element of the general plan before so i'm inclined to oppose we cancel the july 6 hearing. do we need to be that you should officially remove that from your hearing scheduled on >> president wolfram: i need a motion to remove that >> clerk: yes steve from >> clerk: then, to cancel july 6 hearing on your hearing schedule, so moved
commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> president wolfram: commissioner hyland >> commissioner hyland: i have a disclosure and agenda item 6. ingleside presbyterian church. this is the second time it's come before us and less time i became aware during a presentation that architectural resources group,, my previous employer, and company have done a report for a gin at the time i do not understand what the extent of that was but i checked with the city attorney and that it's a pro bono evaluation, the conservation issues around the murals. the contact is done and closed, so there's no need for me to recuse myself. i just want to clarify that. >> president wolfram: thank you. >> clerk: it is nothing further we can move onto your regular counter for item 6.
case number 2015 007219 third, 1345 ocean ave. the landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon commission. shannon ferguson department of staff on behalf of susan parks. i'm here today present departments recommendation regarding limit participation of ingleside presbyterian church in its interior collage mural an artist's environment entitled the great cloud of witnesses. located at 1345 ocean ave., in the ingleside neighborhood. the building is added to the landmark designation work in inmate 2013 #staff at the heritage pro bono architectural historic officials and pro bono architectural conservatives arg began working on the project. the building is a committee for landmark status both for its architectural and artistic association. first, the church itself is architecturally significant work of master
architect jesse leonard. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the neoclassical style and a unique example of neoclassical ecclesiastical architecture in the city. architect justin leonard was well known locally for his parts as chosen as the george's artistic today the building is one of limits you extend religious structure. secondly, the church is artistically significant parts interior mural collage. the great cloud of witnesses. begin by robin gordon in 1980 a big contributions to the study of american folk art. african-american mural, the artist environment and san francisco african-american history. the great cloud of witnesses composition size location and technique used to make it unique. the overall arrangement across multiple rooms and floors the extensive
size encompasses most of the churches interior and the distinctive choice of media and collage technique is unparalleled on this scale. they work in progress since 1980, the great cloud of witnesses is a rare tribute and the largest most imaginatively executed folk artist environment dedicated to religion, culture, african-american history and role models in the country. the interior characteristic features include rooms, volume and was, and staircases that were historically accessible to the public such as the lobby jim & georgia the collage mural is also considered [inaudible]is that rev. gordon has determined to be complete including all components of the mural across all services in the lobby, the jim, the obama technology center, the michael jackson, the willie brown and the legacy room. for the
ordinance, "and is allowed to keep working on other rooms that not been determined complete and is a manner that is been working with that entitlement. it also states any future conservation or stabilization effort should be guided by the conditions effectively thereby arg in the california are preservation act subject to the consent of the artist rev. gordon. there's no nonpublic opposition to the landmark designation and the church's support of the designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this morning i was met with rev. gordon and without mural work. yvonne leaves the building needs: status is wanted. donna harman recommends atc resonates designation to the board of supervisors this compose my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. the questions, commissioners? we will now take public comment on this item. remember the public was to comment on this and not designation? please come forward.
>> testifier: i'm rolling gordon pastor of the church could oh i think the commissioners for coming out to see firsthand what is unfolding at angles side, that the community is very excited about and i really felt honored today to have you present. i want to say thank you. the wolfram thank you very much for it was an honor to be there. i never any other member of the item was to public ones item? hearing none, and seeing none, will will close public comment and bring it back to the commission. >> i move we approve this. >> second. >> president wolfram: >> clerk: thank you commissioners. there's a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval. on a motion, so moved commissioners. the motion
passes unanimously. commissioners that are places on items seven for december 2015 -007181, 140 maiden ln. this is also a landmark designation. >> staff: good afternoon commissioners. shannon ferguson department staff. i'm here today to present their parts trepidation regarding a mimics to the landmark designation for 140 maiden ln. historically known as the gift shop located in the conservation district. 140 maiden was designated as landmark 72 and 1975. at the all-time leader in your features of the: with designated such as a blank wall of brick and romanesque arch. the internal circular structure is equally as significant as the exterior and as a shop it was historically public good accessible. complete level for the guggenheim museum 140 maiden ln. is the first
building to be constructed oozing what frank wainwright's favorite spectral shape the spiral which dominated his work out of finally. frank wainwright is by far the most well known and influenced american art that although they produce several designs further buildings in san francisco, the bc mortgage shop is the only one realize. it is a significant and rare modern building designed by the master architect. the planning department has shared the designation report with property owners and is received one letter of support from the community member supervisor peskin is also in support of the landmark designation. commissioners wolfram and hyland visited the site this market during the site commissioners noted original light fixtures and [inaudible]. the department believes the building meets the stylish eligibility requirements and does designation is wanted without harman recommends a
mimics to the designation to the board of supervisors this concludes my presentation good i'm happy to answer questions. >> president wolfram: thank you. any questions for ms. ferguson? i have a question about the light fixtures in the pneumatic two-tiered that's not currently >> staff: that's not currently listed in the designation. we do not discuss it this morning during the site visit. distort shows that the light fixtures may indeed be historic get people from these are the ones in the ceiling that are kind of what shape would you call that, spherical? actually the first floor. the upper-level lights are part of the [inaudible]. thank you. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? please come forward. seeing none, anyone will close public comment and bring back to the commission. commissioners, comment? other
comments? i'm sorry. okay. i apologize. we will reopen public comment. the 3 min. >> testifier: good afternoon on sharon slater in the senior vice president of asset management for downtown properties represent the owner of 140 maiden ln. we had a great site visit this morning and it was really good for me to know now that we are really on the same page as far as the preservation of the building. the concerns that you've expressed the same ones that we have, so that is great. my concern is that we been having some trouble with the leasing of the building. our pool of prospective tenants is fairly narrow because were little picky about who we want to go into. not everybody appreciates the history of the building. we've had some problems with deals dropping out because they're concerned about the process of getting approvals for
any alterations they would like to make. granted, not able to make any alterations to the elements we talked about, but just the process of getting plans approved even within that guideline is difficult. so, we talked about potentially meeting so we can talk about specifics of what the guidelines should be for the things that would be preapproved, like the color palettes for paint and that sort of thing. we what we saw when we have a pop-up was [inaudible] is my new pff-it was my futile beautiful but the activation of the building was fantastic to see it so vibrant and full of people. we have so many request for people to visit the building. so, i would like to see it activated permanently as soon as possible. so i am hoping that you can help me smooth the way
on this process so that's not a deterrent to getting the right kind of tenants we all want. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you very much. any other member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comments. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck:. those comments, have any influence on the staff recommendation, but my basic idea here is this is another remarkable building for us to endorse landmark use. so i would move to approve staff >> president wolfram: i like classic question of sector am wondering a subconscious made, whether we could administer this that would allow us to delegate to have some of the interior work, or a set of guidelines that you could meet with the property owner to discuss so they don't have to come back to the commission for doing painting or more minor work within the interior. is
that something that could be included in this or how would we do with this? i do know the ministry to see a vase onset of her injury when so much. >> staff: commissioners, the-you are certainly if you're inclined to do so you could amend this ordinance to clarify what could be delegated to staff, but article 10 in article 11 already do provide a mechanism for you to delegate to us at any time. so, if we were not to take up now, after meeting with the representatives of the building and having a better understanding of what types of scopes of work they're interested in expediting, we could then come back to you at a future date with those and
then at that time you could consider delegating them to us. you don't necessarily have to do as part of the delegation agreement were part of this ordinance could you can do it anytime >> president wolfram: so this be approved by the order supervisors and mayor and so at later time when you meet with the property owner we could talk about what items could be delegated. i would like to be a supple to the owner as possible. >> staff: after the meeting we would then have a better understanding of exactly what we could delegate. >> president wolfram: okay get i think that makes sense. >> i moved to approve staff recommendations before >> moved and seconded. >> president wolfram: do it that i can do is a discussion about adding the light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. which i would recommend adding with the additional the ground floor and light fixtures and the pneumatic tube. >> where is the pneumatic tube and what was it for? be wolfram it was for public processing orders and money. >> do some the sales desk area down? >> president wolfram: yes. maybe the pneumatic tube on those second ground floor not necessarily the basement location. does that make sense?
>> commissioner johnck: absolutely. >> president wolfram: i think we have a motion and a second. >> clerk: very good good on a motion to adopt the recommendations for approval to the board of supervisors, as amended to include the oval like pictures on the ground floor and pneumatic tube at the ground and second levels, so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners places on item 8. december 2014-001711.. the wireless facility planning code did this is a amendment. >> staff: thank you. omar mastery on behalf of the san francisco planning department. the best before you as an item to request changes in san francisco planning code recommendations to the board of supervisors. as it relates to
wireless talk mitigation services facility. otherwise known as referred to commonly as cell towers and cell antennas. within this request would be a more brought change to article 10 and 11 of the planning code. which do with certain entitlements first preservation applications peer if sfgtv could pull up the slideshow, please? so, one of the primary changes would clarify the staff can render a decision which includes approval or denial, of certain historic preservation applications. those would include the mistreated certificate of appropriateness, reminder permit to alter. currently, for example, article 10 of the planning code indicates that staff can it go. by this historic preservation commission, that can choose approve a application but [inaudible] the reason this is
important is because a new state law took effect in january 2016. over two initially is a be-57. basically said for wireless facility application comes in for any city or county in california, the city does not make a decision in so many days of application being complete then it is automatically approved or deemed granted. the city would have to go to court in order to try to stop that approval from taking effect. so, in this example, one of our concerns would be the care were to submit an application for wireless facility downtown and committed building permit application and application for the mistreated certificate of appropriateness is an article can map them of tradition. one of the concerns would be a scenario where the applicant has an application complete. the shot clock the time limit within 90 days or 150 days, is ticking and counts against the city the carrier has not provided design that looks like it complies or appears to comply with the security of interior standards for treatment for historic
properties or other local boulders were other guidelines with respect to historic preservation concerns. in that scenario, the staff were inclined to try to deny this facility before the automatic approval took effect, one of the challenges we face is that we didn't initially required notification labels for owners and occupants within 70 feet. back when the application was initially submitted. so the shortest demo, if you will, to get a project to hearing for denial if the carrier is not willing to make those changes in order to avoid an automatic approval. for the sake of clarity and consistency across article 10 and 11, this change would apply to all scopes of work that are delegated by this story preservation commission to departments that. so, it would include things like signage, including signage on the screen that has tenants on-site. would include roof deck as it currently does.
historic alterations, both wireless facilities on rooftops as well as within the public right-of-way. since the antenna attached. by polls and transit polls and utility poles we now see in san francisco. another change would not be maybe a notable interest to the commission, but it would allow screening such as fake scrabble with the current acception from-it's from steel towers and antennas and women associate with wireless facility. were this would be of assistance as we may see as an example larger building and 6-7 stories where it exceeds the 40 foot height limit for instance down to much of the city. that building may be less intrusive in terms of the overall size of the facility being scale and context appropriate respect to the building but because of the current height limitations for screening elements, the carrier
may not be able to pursue that cyprus the screen is used to stop the equipment the antennas and cabling and other appurtenances would not be an option available under the plan current planning code rules. so the ability to add screen above limits consistent with exception currently for on-screen facilities would allow staff to work with carriers and the community to find less intrusive locations especially from a scale and context perspective. however, code amendment this clip by staff would still be able to review projects with respect to design review, shed of you and city parks and prisons historic preservation review. many limits imposed by the planning commission is so, this example at the bottom of the photo, the proposed simulation, chosen design a potentially historic resource we would not consider appropriate and still maintain the ability to request that the care modified or design more appropriate for the building of the neighborhood. ms. just to wrap up, the one which provides
you in the planning commission or start commission back it was on son. you provided a signed version of that. the planning commission unanimously recommended initiation of the amendment of march 17 and the scheduled adoption hearing for june 16 or any time afterwards and supervisor avalos is also sponsored the proposed amendment. with that, i'll post my presentation and be happy to answer questions. thank you. >> president wolfram: thank you. mr. find >> staff: just a follow-up on mr. mastery's comments, i just want to provide a little more clarity on what existing in the code. in terms of your process. and what this change really means for article 10 and 11. essentially, the code in terms of delegation is silent on whether or not we can disapprove entitlements and administrative entitlement. with this does it just
clarifies that. so, in the case of any member of the public were this commission appealing or asking are we filing a request for hearing, all of those mechanisms still stay in place. so, as you recall, i think in the sims 2009, we've had to request for hearings. that would still be the process if the wireless carrier were neighbor felt that we approved or disapproved something in error. they could still petition this commission, or any of the members of this commission could do the same and we would schedule it at the next hearing. so, really, again, all this is doing is allowing us to disapproved something as long as you've delegated it to staff. because it's related specifically-but changes were brought upon
because of this new wireless amendment, we felt though it was more responsible to broaden that still wasn't that we were just disapproving or approving wireless facilities, that we are actually using the same process for all items delegated to us. but again, if you need further clarification on that we can always walk through the code sections as well. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: did you open public hearing >> president wolfram: we've not done public commented yet. >> commissioner johnck: okay can i just i'm just curious and maybe can answer more discussion after public comment, but i'm trying to understand the context of this because i've been seeing the mbta's come through in a bit looking at them. say what are the implications for historic preservation because sin there's lots. there's a lot of these. it's a documented many years ago when al gore had wire
american we were laying fiber optic cable all over the phrase is using this is phase 2 these kinds of wireless enhancements structures so to speak. i am just like your comments about -i've not seen anything that would be particularly obtrusive, knowing what the purpose of these are. and that kind of thing. although, i be interested to see if you need further scrutiny on these or if there's not too much-not that many issues with these? do you have enough leeway to approve things as you been doing? or do you need to mark? >> staff: under the current process, yes. i would just add the czar and omar can chime in on this as well. these are very time-consuming applications. there's a lot of back-and-forth that has to occur designwise between the wireless carriers
and staff. they are generally open to that conversation, but it takes a number of rounds of revisions to get to a point where we feel that it doesn't sort of overwhelmed the roofline or different since at&t was going to install something, then verizon and t-mobile don't come and try to do the same thing and then we have an antenna farm on the roof. so, because of that-because there is a diminished sort of mechanism to work with because of this new clock, we felt it was necessary just as a safeguard measure to have this option to deny something. it's purely the carriers in action on responding to us that could require us to approve it. that was when of our main concerns. >> staff: if i may clarify, the federal and state law are
required it has to approve facilities necessarily could push us to make a decision faster. the process of the aco will is a definite advantage for the individual specially the sequencer project inevitable for article 10 and 11 entitlement as was the planning commission entitlement to those constrained time frames within 90 days for the location can be a real challenge. with the victory are seeing for the [inaudible] are mostly modifications. they're mostly dismisses where carrier has antennas 10 years further swapping out and we had varying degrees of success. getting those antennas off the primary side where they should not have been approved using it when we do not knows as much. it's a constant sort of discussion with both the carriers trying to move equipment, mood facilities with the property owners. the sometime questioned why the changes occurring. this often pieces where a staff were
talking to the property owner st. rashly asking for this change because it week is beneficial to the neighborhood and building as well as in terms of enhancing its own. >> president wolfram: thank you. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: to question. when we have the hansen street probably two years ago and we completely asked for redesign our calls. they look great. did that come because of the historic district or why? adjusting market st., van, right because i can to >> testifier: that was a first for a small. city-owned before that we've only seen wireless facilities on with utility poles the city does not open. those are the most controversial often big and bulky. reddit the bedroom items. we seen a lot more support, if you will, with respect to small styles that can be 40. so verizon came forward the design four 320 small cells initially in soma northeast of the city to attach
two small boxes an antenna. we got to design many neighbors about reset it looks pretty darn good it's a fairly unintrusive, and susan were now seen t-mobile, copying our design. seeing att and looking possibly going, that same path and we think it's a good sort of starting point. >> commissioner hasz: all that stuff comes up under this 98, and? >> testifier: for brand-new site it's 150 days. however, the city owns the assets, likely on the parties actually the sole site is going on, we own the steel plate welcome those do not apply because a property owner we have more discretion we can say that, but start by because we be acting as in her capacity as a property owner of the permitting agency. we face a
real challenge to be the new site is on private property. the code location is at 90 days on private property in the antennas attached to the existing wooden poles on by say pacific gas & electric. >> commissioner hasz: think the clarifying. that helps out. by second question would oh my second question my comments and would be ongoing about height limit for screening. i think it's kind of a tricky thing. and to meet you must be-i get worried saying [inaudible] to me that season on a restriction so currently on on-screen antennas is very certain height allowed to go? is a case-by-case basis? >> testifier: there's no either mr. unscreened antennas and towers. rather approved unscreened 10 is and towers for cell phones first. they generally don't need to be that high. >> commissioner hasz: i would just love to see some kind of limiting language. on height. >> staff: minors in that provision is that was applied
to situations where the building is already overnight limit? speeds >> testifier: it be broad-based. imbued reviewed by exceeding a height. for example in the bayview if the carrier came forward and want to put up fake water tower on the site would normally be-if on a rooftop permitted because it's 25 feet above the height limit but the ground for the fake water tower could automatically require planning commission reviewed and will be subject to any limitations posed by the planning commission specified limit included within the scope of the application. >> commissioner hasz: on top mess of that, under this change would not go to any commission, right? that's what were talking about. doing it so you can take your this in-house. so, to me am happy to give that approval, but i'm really not-i'm leery of giving anything without limiting that height
limit. >> testifier: is a qualified. in any zoning district that's not cdm or conduct searches in cedar six, r districts, all they recorded the planning commission and they have. so we check there if you appeared in the downtown, for instance without via any public review normally, if you can exceed more than 25 feet above the roof height you're already can be taken to require planning commission conditional use authorization and so there is sort of >> i've seen a couple of these installations downtown on rooftops and only 15 feet tall maximum. you adjusting to me that should be a number that should be in the. >> i'm wondering if we could get this works or not you let me know, god limitations on the roof you can do certain things about the height limit and the code right now like elevator penthouses and stare penthouses
and there are limitations. on how much of the roof they can cover and how high those can be. it seems like that would be a logical we could use those same limits. i don't know if that works, omar? >> testifier: that's what we are currently good reason since it is a template height exception for pipes we've applied to determination by the zone administrator. for fake elevator and house is only 16 foot height limit if you're in a sony district that's come i'm sorry, a high distance over 65 feet. so that 16 foot exception reply as well for something that makes a fake 0v penthouse. which generally gives the challenge though. it can mimic in elevator penthouses give you near the edge of the roof generally. doesn't look like it belongs there. so you put the elevator penthouses in the middle of the roof and you have 16 foot to work with, it's only 16 feet above the height limit,
the building rac site limit you don't have as much to work with. so that site not mean up the bible and we have less ability to encourage the carrier to move further back onto the-further back away from the primary façade. >> commissioner hasz: because i help with these regulations the signal goes out and a certain dive pattern just can't make it over the building down onto the street. >> testifier: to restate the carriers are tied up push to as close as the roof is possible. this of the panel's not for every type of wireless disorder that odyssey this most challenging ubiquitous facility insulation. so the comp demise has been get a one-to-one setback. for every foot of height above the parapet of the roofline, i move the antenna and screening back 1 foot away from the façade so doesn't appear to impose and dominate the roof line.
>> president wolfram: commissioner bauman >> commissioner pearlman: it seems to me the staff in general is fairly conservative about anything that isn't specifically in the code so things like not having a limit. i would trust the staff were specimen comes to historic buildings to be quite certain sect about something being 30 feet up and very visible, and would either deny or would then have a process through as mr. mastery said the things that would need to go to the planning commission or come here. so, i don't have that particular fear that something is going to sneak through that would be so obtrusive.. it seems that the staff would catch something like that quite quickly. and would work with the carrier to deal with it. speed >> president wolfram: commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: in hearing talking about once one
that starts making sense that it's a limiting factor. that sounds good. if that's not in their written, maybe it should be. maybe i guide you been using but maybe that should be here starbase standard. 121. >> president wolfram: >> staff: at this time with a public comments. does any member of the public was to make comment on this item we pick if so, these come forward. you will have 3 min. >> testifier: my name is another james. it sounds like something that i am having a problem with my community. i'm not sure why but anyway, ipg and he has a hole in my backyard in the back of our property, and always telecommunication wires are going to that. but, at the same time, since they put it in they say they have a light easement to the
property. but, cars is the easement to my neighbor in that. but now cars are wider and bigger there's only 15 inches so nobody can get through that-descartes or station wagon can't get through that and i asked them, with a move the poll they said they have a right to be there, but instead of them going back to her property, they stopped in front of my property and blocked my garage. so i'm just saying, this can be a problem and whether, like you limit it to so many years, i think it's a good idea to take a new look at that but, right now, i don't know what this is related to were not but lily is a problem because there's seven houses that are connected to that poll with electricity, as well as
the wiring for their telecommunication and what have you. so, anyway, it does have an effect. the other thing i want to say, thank you for voting for rev. gordon because it is my community and we have use that and i thank you very much. thank. >> president wolfram: thank you. any other member of the public was to comment on this item? seeing none, and hearing none, will close public comment and bring it back to the commission did commissioners hamilton asked to adopt a resolution recommending approval. commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: i do want to move to approve that last comment, designer; and, but for the decision coming out currently from our department just looking forward 10 years that we have some standards. the only reason i bring that up and kept bringing it up. but otherwise, yes, i moved to approve >> president wolfram: stirfried >> staff: to appoint
accreditation based on commissioner hasz is common. with a desire to include women that resolution because remember, this is review and comment zero comments we forwarded to the planning commission and the board of supervisors. the got something in there at all lines up the hpc desires some language that talks about a limiting factor, whether a not to exceed, or some other existing policy that the department uses just demonstrating that these should not be the carriers should not have unlimited access to height. >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: i was also interested in this issue of screening and exceeding height limits the kind of thing. so i would be interested in that to suggest that the code be amended to include a basic standard. such as we talked about. >> president wolfram:
commissioner hasz >> commissioner hasz: >> testifier: 121 sounds good to me. she will give a comment on this >> testifier: each of the standards runs of two different technologies. for instance if we make a broad-based exemption to include wireless than total, there's some wireless facilities that are simply antenna the size of the with of my pinky. he may not have any interest for practical day by day standpoint of limiting the height of that within 10 in the middle-of-the-road in which i do limit based on these different metrics, there's going to be a larger exceptions will be going challenge in order to review. so if i could offer i think the 25 foot height sort of trigger for those
providers leverage in terms of same to the carrier, if you go that high, you have to go back for the planning commission and eight limitations imposed by them. >> commissioner hasz: i'm sorry but 25 is so high at the age of any building. right? i mean were talking 16 foot from elevator penthouse. that's never the edge of the building like we were saying. it's just, i just will, were not doing this commonly. i just worry about it being read between the lines in the city getting sued by some carrier saying i want 25. he did i get that and you know what i mean? be bumped heads with them this commission on the sanford street now and again on the market street now and they were not as bendable is your experiencing. at the commission level. so i can imagine sometimes it's a fight. i just look, we push backs up all the time that this commission but it's only a store building but to me every building should not have stopped jammed up to the
front of it. we also don't have a with. find them okay maybe we have 16 foot height but we make the width of the whole building. it just feels a little loose. >> testifier: if i could clarify, the intent is having basic language is also cover things that ought to be on rooftops. for instance, without carrier proposes a tree at a along the freeway on the 280? get to consider the structure that's a height limitations were part one supported by clocktower that also has cell antennas in there. so we try to create a simple baseline recognizing it preserves our ability to say no. the other item i would point out, there often are instances among site visitors were up there on the rooftops with engineers and rosina try mine were kerry is not going top of the roof try to get ui because what happens
they start to interfere with own network chemistry. they want to contain the signal within a lower area. so not seen carrier summary try to get more height because that defeats the purpose of what they're trying to accomplish when it comes to the cell antennas specifically. >> president wolfram: i think what you are saying is that you don't want to codify the one-to-one because there's a lot of extenuating circumstances and unattended consequently the way to incorporate into the guidelines as opposed to the legislation? >> testifier: we can cut a fight into the guidelines. we provided >> president wolfram: if it's in the code then- >> commissioner hasz: i get you. just something in there. probably the with like no more than 25% of the width of the building or something. you know? >> president wolfram: commissioner johnck >> commissioner johnck: no, i'm done but i agree with putting in the guidelines. i hear what you're saying.
>> testifier: i would agree the guidelines would be the appropriate place to put that in. >> president wolfram: okay so i moved to approve the changes. the set was that san francisco san francisco you have a conversation with a woman who spoke earlier? >> clerk: if there's nothing further there's a motion seconded to adopt the recommendation for approval and the motion, so moves commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. that concludes our hearing today. >> president wolfram: the hearing is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>.
>> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the
shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's
>> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen
by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is
subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blowertections please seek www.